Action against judges 56 times in MDP administration; 5 times in current administration

Attorney General Ahmed Usham states action was taken against judges 56 times during the former MDP administration, while only action has been taken against judges just five times under the current administration so far.

Usham, via a post on X, shared the details of action taken against judges by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) since 2019, citing it to be “clear evidence” of the time period where influence was most exerted on judges.

He stressed that it was the current administration that ended “disciplinary action” against judges after assuming office in November 2023 over remarks they have made during a trial or rulings they have delivered.

According to Usham, the following actions were taken against judges during the MDP administration from 2018 to 2023:

• Number of judges dismissed: 8
• Number of judges suspended: 12
• Number of judges demoted: 3
• Number of judges who were cautioned after being found liable in disciplinary issues: 33

Action taken against judges since the current administration assumed office in November 2023 until February 2025:

• Number of judges dismissed: 0
• Number of judges suspended: 3
• Number of judges demoted: 0
• Number of judges who were cautioned after being found liable in disciplinary issues: 2

Usham’s remarks come after a motion has been filed with the Supreme Court seeking action against Attorney General’s Office (AG Office) for contempt of the court with regard to violation of a court order. The order pertains to the case challenging the contentious amendment to add anti-defection provisions to the Constitution.

In a hearing in the case held on February 18^th, the judges bench decided to allow the state a 10-day period to respond to the case as requested by the state. Via a letter to the court, Attorney Ali Hussain who filed the constitutional case challenging the amendments, claimed the AG Office had not responded to the case nor requested an extension to file their response.

As per Supreme Court regulations, the party subject to a court order is required to comply with it. Failure to do so will be considered contempt of court.

Notably, the Court had decided it had jurisdiction to review the constitutional case against arguments by the state.

However, three justices were suspended less than one hour ahead of the 11:00am hearing scheduled at the Supreme Court on February 26^th regarding a request for an injunction to suspend the enforcement of controversial anti-defection clauses. 

At 10:00am on the same day, the Parliament passed the government-backed amendment to the Judicature Act to downsize the Supreme Court bench from seven to five justices.

Opposition parties, including the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Democrats, have accused the government of attempting to influence the country's highest judicial authority and subvert judicial independence over the time of the bill.

Husnu al-Suood, who was suspended, resigned shortly after in a letter to President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu in which he raised bombshell allegations against the government.

In this regard, Suood said the Supreme Court had faced numerous pressures from the administration ever since the court established it had jurisdiction to hear a case challenging the contentious amendment to add anti-defection provisions to the Constitution.

Justice Dr. Azmiralda Zahir, who remains in suspension, also released a statement via her legal team, accusing the government of attempting to exert influence on her by leveraging the case against her husband.

In a statement on Thursday, Azmiralda’s legal team reiterated that she had not reached out to any judges to try to influence her husband's release. Instead, the legal team accused individuals in high-ranking government positions of leveraging the case as an attempt to influence Azmiralda through various institutions.

With the suspension of the three justices, the case remains deadlocked.